Should court orders on abuse go online? ACLU, advocates disagree

By Cy Ryan

Friday, June 4, 2010 | 9:12 a.m.

CARSON CITY – Information about temporary protection orders issued by the courts in domestic violence cases shouldn't be disseminated on the Internet to safeguard the abused, victims' rights groups say.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, however, says these are public records and there should be no restrictions.

The two sides aired their views Thursday before the Commission on Preservation, Access and Sealing of Court Records. It is looking into how these protection orders are handled by the courts in Nevada. The commission is trying to come up with recommendations to the Nevada Supreme Court on a uniform way the protections are handled in the courts.

Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty, the chairman of the commission, said the current system is “chaotic” and there is no consistent pattern in the way temporary protection orders are processed by the court. Some courts allow open access and others keep them sealed.

Sheila MacDonald, a court services analyst, said these court orders not only include domestic violence but also deal with stalking, harassment and harm to minors.

“There is no consistency,” she said, adding that it varies from court to court on whether such records are open or closed.

Victims' rights groups stood behind the premise that the court orders and other documents in the file should not be allowed on the Internet.

Nancy Hart of the Network Against Domestic Violence suggested a person who puts this information on the Internet should be subject to civil penalties. Hart and others said this invades the privacy of the victim and could discourage them from filing for these orders in the future.

Andrea Sundberg of the Nevada Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Las Vegas, told the commission the “safety of the victim must be taken into account” when determining whether these records should be sealed -- and they should never been permitted on the Internet, she said.

Lee Rowland, northern coordinator for the ACLU of Nevada, argued his group "favors full and meaningful access to public documents, including publication on the Internet."

“We do not believe that once a document is determined to be public, that there should be any procedures that make it intentionally less available than other records,” she said.

There was also disagreement on whether the person whom the order is filed against should have access to it.

Rowland said “the individual whose actions are limited by a TPO has an absolute right to know all the details essential to comply with the order.” But there could be a motion by the victim to seal the record if there was “a showing of compelling interest.”

Sundberg argued the “adverse party” should not have access to the information in the temporary protection orders. She said any information beyond the name of the victim should be confidential.

But other victims' rights advocates said there should be a “balancing test” applied by the court to determine what information should be sealed. For instance, photos of severe abuse or nudity should be kept confidential, they said.

Susan Meuschke of the Nevada Network Against Violence said there was great concern about rules that would allow “unregulated public access” to these protection orders.